MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION - Annual Report for 1998 



and non-governmental organizations to review U.S. 

 implementation of the Agreement. The Service 

 subsequently prepared a draft report assessing U.S. 

 compliance with each of the provisions of the Agree- 

 ment and with the resolution concerning the taking of 

 female bears, cubs, and denning bears. 



The draft report, which is discussed in previous 

 armual reports, identified four principal areas of 

 concern: incidental taking of polar bears as a result 

 of oil- and gas-related activities; habitat protection; 

 the prohibition on using aircraft to hunt polar bears; 

 and the taking of female bears with cubs, cubs, or 

 bears in denning areas. 



The Commission's comments on the draft report, 

 transmitted to the Service on 5 July 1996, are dis- 

 cussed in the previous aimual report. Although the 

 Commission generally believed that the draft report 

 had done a good job of identifying the areas in which 

 the United States may not have fully implemented the 

 provisions of the polar bear agreement, it suggested 

 several technical revisions and clarifications to be 

 incorporated into the report before it is provided to 

 Congress. The Commission also noted that the 

 Commission-sponsored report on reconciling U.S. law 

 and the Agreement discussed many of the relevant 

 issues in greater detail than did the Service's report 

 and recommended that it be provided to Congress 

 along with the report. 



As noted in the previous annual report, at the 

 end of 1997 it was the Commission's understanding 

 that a final report had been prepared and was under- 

 going clearance within the Department of the Interior 

 for transmittal to Congress early in 1998. At the end 

 of 1998, however, the report had not yet been submit- 

 ted to Congress. 



As noted above, section 113 of the Marine Mam- 

 mal Protection Act also directs the Secretary of the 

 Interior to consult with contracting parties to review 

 the effectiveness of the Agreement on the Conserva- 

 tion of Polar Bears. On 5 May 1997 the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service sent letters to the other parties 

 seeking their assistance in conducting the review. The 

 Service asked each party to apprise the United States 

 on the status of its compliance with the Agreement 



and to provide its view as to whether a further review 

 by the parties is warranted. 



As of the end of 1998 the Service had received 

 final reviews from Canada, Norway, and Greenland, 

 and a preliminary response from the Russian Federa- 

 tion. Once all final responses are in hand, the Service 

 intends to prepare a report on international compliance 

 with the Agreement and the other parties' views as to 

 what further review of the effectiveness of the Agree- 

 ment is needed. 



Bilateral Polar Bear Agreements 



As discussed above, two discrete polar bear 

 populations occur in Alaska, and both are shared with 

 other countries. The northern (Beaufort Sea) popula- 

 tion is shared with Canada and the western (Bering- 

 Chukchi Seas) population is shared with Russia. 

 Efforts to develop cooperative programs with these 

 countries for the management and conservation of 

 polar bears are discussed below. 



North Slope Borough/Inuvialuit Polar Bear 

 Agreement — The Beaufort Sea polar bear population 

 is hunted by Natives from northwestern Canada as 

 well as Alaska. If not regulated effectively, such 

 hunting, by itself and in combination with other 

 activities, could cause the population to decline. 

 Recognizing this, the Fish and Game Management 

 Committee of Alaska's North Slope Borough and the 

 Inuvialuit Game Council of Canada's Northwest 

 Territories entered into an agreement in January 1988 

 to govern cooperatively the hunting of polar bears in 

 the area between Icy Cape, Alaska, and the Baillie 

 Islands, Canada. 



In certain respects the agreement between the 

 North Slope Borough and the Inuvialuit Game Council 

 is more restrictive than the Marine Mammal Protec- 

 tion Act. For example, the agreement calls for 

 protecting cubs, females with cubs, and all bears 

 inhabiting or constructing dens, and prohibits airborne 

 hunting. Other provisions of the agreement prohibit 

 hunting at certain times of the year and provide that 

 a harvest quota, based on the best available scientific 

 evidence, be established annually. Quotas are allocat- 

 ed equitably between Natives in Alaska and Canada, 

 and data are collected and shared on the number, 



80 



